Fat Steve's Blatherings

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Why I'm voting for Bush, and can't support Kerry

      In 1944, a U.S. bomber pilot named William L. Borden was flying home from a night mission over Europe.  He was thinking satisfied thoughts about how fast his plane travelled, when suddenly, there was a flare of light from the rear.  'We're on fire!', he thought.  Then suddenly, the flare of light was in front of him, receding, and he realized what it really was: a V-2 rocket, passing his plane like it was standing still.

      The result of that night was a book titled There Will Be No Time: the Revolution in Strategy.  It's message was simple: we can never again fight a war as we've always done, delaying serious preparation till after the war starts.  If we try, we'll be annhilated by rocket-carried nuclear warheads.

      Still, a lot of people refused to see what Borden saw and described.  We almost lost S. Korea because we'd nearly disbanded the military, as usual.  But after that wake up call, we turned our back on tradition and maintained large military forces in peacetime.  There was no other rational choice.

      In the '80s and '90s we almost ignored terrorism.  The result was ever increasing terrorist attacks, culminating in the 9/11 slaughters.  Since that day, several things have become as obvious to those who will see them: that we are at war with radical Islam; that we can't wait to be attacked, but need to pre-empt.  that many of our old allies are now hostile to us, and try to prevent us from acting in order to harm us; that the United Nations has become a corrupt farce.

      George W. Bush has realized all this.  Kerry hasn't gotten it.  Kerry wants to work with the French, who are currently doing such a bang up job of keeping the peace in the Congo.  He's eager to sacrifice Israel to the Islamofacists.  Kerry didn't learn anything from the '70s, '80s, and '90s.  Kerry thinks the UN is still relevant, and that he can persuade every govt. to co-operate against terrorists, after which terrorism will be reduced to a nuicance.

      If we elect Kerry, we'll encourage the terrorists to believe we lack staying power and can be backed down by them.  N. Korea and Iran will "negotiate," while building nuclear weapons and ICBMS.  Missile defense will be gutted.  And in the end, we'll have a nuclear 9/11.

      If we weren't in a war, I might seriously consider voting for John Kerry.  As with many other conservatives, I'm disappointed in much of Bush's domestic policy.  But we are in a war, and defence of the nation trumps all other issues.  I don't agree with all Bush has done in the war we're now in, but W. will fight the war, Kerry will surrender while pretending to fight it.  Our country can't afford him.

Update, 10/25: John Leo writes in USNews and World Report:
the value system widely shared among Democrats: Most people are basically good; wars are caused not by evil motives but by misunderstandings that can be talked out; conflict can be overcome by more tolerance and examining of our own faults or by taking disputes to the United Nations. . . .

At the time of the first antiwar marches, Marc Cooper, contributing editor of the very left magazine The Nation, wrote with alarm that "the American left--or at least a broad swath of it--is more alienated from its own national institutions than its counterparts in any other developed nation. . . . What a warning signal," he wrote, "when you cannot tolerate the sight of your own flag." He warned that the perpetrators of 9/11 must not be viewed as avengers of some oppressed Third World constituency and complained that peace marches were sounding the theme that America somehow invited the 9/11 attacks.

Indeed, that blame-America attitude, once confined to the hard left, has been leaching into the soft left and the Democratic Party. A Pew survey last August reported that 51 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of liberal Democrats believe that America might have motivated the 9/11 attacks by doing something wrong or unfair in dealings with other nations. Admittedly, America's strong support for Israel may have influenced the poll. Still, it's astonishing that so many Democrats are willing to point a finger at their own country for the devastation of 9/11. In the poll, most Americans rejected this notion decisively, and Republicans rejected it overwhelmingly.

In Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz wrote of a "trickle-down effect" of virulent anti-Americanism. The anti-Iraq-war demonstrations were a grab bag of contradictory constituencies, many of which had nothing to do with war and peace. But they held out the promise that the hard and soft left, by refusing to criticize each other, could form a powerful alliance. So ordinary Democrats raised almost no objection to the many hate-America themes at these marches. (Few liberals and almost no reporters mentioned that the rallies were organized by unreconstructed Communist-front groups and Maoist fans of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il.) Some of the dumber themes--Bush=Hitler and no blood for oil--moved into the mainstream left. Many stars in the Democratic firmament praised Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which carries some of these themes, including the belief that an evil alliance between the Saudis and the Bush family explains the war in Iraq.

Maybe Andrew Sullivan is right that electing John Kerry can bring the Democratic Party fully into the war on terror. But given the forces at work among Democrats, it's surely a gamble.

(hat tip: Instapundit).

      Exactly.  Kerry and most of his supporters are dangerously disconnected from reality (and most of them who don't believe that are on the enemy side).

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!

1 Comments:

  • Hoo-yah! Good point well stated.

    Plus I was beginning to think you had abandoned your blog. And today three posts. Very good stuff!

    By Blogger Doug, at 1:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home